BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    hospital construction expert witness Anaheim California retail construction expert witness Anaheim California townhome construction expert witness Anaheim California concrete tilt-up expert witness Anaheim California industrial building expert witness Anaheim California casino resort expert witness Anaheim California low-income housing expert witness Anaheim California housing expert witness Anaheim California condominium expert witness Anaheim California condominiums expert witness Anaheim California landscaping construction expert witness Anaheim California tract home expert witness Anaheim California high-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California office building expert witness Anaheim California Subterranean parking expert witness Anaheim California institutional building expert witness Anaheim California multi family housing expert witness Anaheim California Medical building expert witness Anaheim California mid-rise construction expert witness Anaheim California parking structure expert witness Anaheim California production housing expert witness Anaheim California custom home expert witness Anaheim California
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Anaheim, California

    California Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: SB800 (codified as Civil Code §§895, et seq) is the most far-reaching, complex law regulating construction defect litigation, right to repair, warranty obligations and maintenance requirements transference in the country. In essence, to afford protection against frivolous lawsuits, builders shall do all the following:A homeowner is obligated to follow all reasonable maintenance obligations and schedules communicated in writing to the homeowner by the builder and product manufacturers, as well as commonly accepted maintenance practices. A failure by a homeowner to follow these obligations, schedules, and practices may subject the homeowner to the affirmative defenses.A builder, under the principles of comparative fault pertaining to affirmative defenses, may be excused, in whole or in part, from any obligation, damage, loss, or liability if the builder can demonstrate any of the following affirmative defenses in response to a claimed violation:


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Anaheim California

    Commercial and Residential Contractors License Required.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Building Industry Association Southern California - Desert Chapter
    Local # 0532
    77570 Springfield Ln Ste E
    Palm Desert, CA 92211
    http://www.desertchapter.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Riverside County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    3891 11th St Ste 312
    Riverside, CA 92501


    Building Industry Association Southern California
    Local # 0532
    17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biasc.org

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Orange County Chapter
    Local # 0532
    17744 Skypark Cir Ste 170
    Irvine, CA 92614
    http://www.biaoc.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - Baldy View Chapter
    Local # 0532
    8711 Monroe Ct Ste B
    Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
    http://www.biabuild.com

    Building Industry Association Southern California - LA/Ventura Chapter
    Local # 0532
    28460 Ave Stanford Ste 240
    Santa Clarita, CA 91355


    Building Industry Association Southern California - Building Industry Association of S Ca Antelope Valley
    Local # 0532
    44404 16th St W Suite 107
    Lancaster, CA 93535



    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Anaheim California

    OSHA Finalizes Rule on Crane Operator Qualification and Certification

    As Climate Changes, 'Underwater Mortgage' May Take on New Meaning

    A Word to the Wise about Construction Defects

    L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out

    Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

    Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014

    Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

    Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP

    Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

    Insurer Must Defend Contractor Against Claims of Faulty Workmanship

    Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims

    Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

    Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

    Is Everybody Single? More Than Half the U.S. Now, Up From 37% in '76

    Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

    San Francisco House that Collapsed Not Built to Plan

    Chinese Hunt for Trophy Properties Boosts NYC, London Prices

    Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case

    Washington Court Limits Lien Rights of Construction Managers

    JD Supra’s 2017 Reader’s Choice Awards

    Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

    Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April

    A Look Back at the Ollies

    Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

    The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

    CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

    Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

    The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

    Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

    District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

    Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

    New American Home Construction Nears Completion Despite Obstacles

    Oregon Bridge Closed to Inspect for Defects

    Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

    Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

    Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

    Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims

    Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

    Construction Defects as Occurrences, Better Decided in Law than in Courts

    New California "Construction" Legislation

    The Ghosts of Projects Past

    Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums

    The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals

    New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

    Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

    Buy a House or Pay Off College? $1.2 Trillion Student Debt Heats Up in Capital

    Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

    HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

    Fifth Circuit Reverses Insurers’ Summary Judgment Award Based on "Your Work" Exclusion

    Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case
    Corporate Profile

    ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately 5000 construction related expert witness designations, the Anaheim, California Construction Expert Directory provides a single point of reference for construction defect and claims related support to lawyers and construction practice groups concerned with construction defect and claims litigation. BHA provides construction claims and trial support services to the nation's most recognized builders, risk managers, legal professionals, owners, state and local government agencies. Employing in house resources which include construction cost, scheduling, and delay experts, professional engineers, ASPE certified professional estimators, and construction safety professionals, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Anaheim and the surrounding areas.

    Anaheim California ada design expert witnessAnaheim California architect expert witnessAnaheim California fenestration expert witnessAnaheim California engineering expert witnessAnaheim California window expert witnessAnaheim California forensic architectAnaheim California construction defect expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Anaheim, California

    District Court of Missouri Limits Whining About the Scope of Waiver of Subrogation Clauses in Wine Storage Agreements

    May 01, 2019 —
    In Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Cellar Advisors, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10655 (E.D. Mo.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri considered the scope of a waiver of subrogation clause in two wine storage agreements. The court held that the subrogation waivers were limited in scope and, potentially, did not apply to the damages alleged in the pleadings. This case establishes that, in Missouri, waivers of subrogation are narrowly construed and cannot be enforced beyond the scope of the specific context in which they appear. In 2005, Krista and Reid Buerger (the Buergers) contracted Marc Lazar (Lazar) to assist with purchasing, transporting and storing their wine. In 2006, the Buergers entered into a contract with Lazar’s company, Domaine StL, for the storage of their wine in St. Louis. In 2012, the Buergers contracted with Lazar’s other company, Domaine NY, for storage of their wine in New Jersey. The 2006 and 2012 contracts included subrogation waivers. Pursuant to the contracts, Lazar and the Domaine companies (collectively, Defendants) would buy wine for the Buergers by either using the Buergers’ credit card or invoicing them after a purchase. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
    Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

    Fifth Circuit Rules that Settlements in Underlying Action Constitute "Other Insurance"

    April 17, 2019 —
    The Fifth Circuit ruled that settlements between an insured and its subcontractors qualified as “other insurance” to the extent those settlements were used to pay for damages covered by an excess insurance policy. Policyholders should note the outcome of this case as it demonstrates the significant impact that settlements can have on coverage. Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. v. Amerisure Mutual Ins. Co.1 was the result of a construction project gone wrong. Zapata County, Texas hired Satterfield & Pontikes (“S&P”) as a general contractor for the construction of a courthouse building. When the project did not go as planned, Zapata County terminated S&P, hired new subcontractors to complete the project, and sued S&P. S&P, in turn, sought indemnification from its subcontractors, who were contractually obligated to indemnify S&P and procure insurance for any damage the subcontractors caused at the project. S&P also sought coverage from its own primary insurers, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“AGLIC”) and Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”), and its excess insurer, U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) who provided liability coverage for S&P’s potential liabilities at the project. The policies contained exclusions for losses arising from mold and did not provide coverage for attorney’s fees or similar legal costs. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
    Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

    Housing Starts Surge 23% in Comeback for Canadian Builders

    July 15, 2019 —
    Canadian housing starts unexpectedly surged in April, in another sign of recovery for the nation’s battered real estate market. Builders started work on an annualized 235,460 units last month, the highest level in 10 months and up 23 percent from 191,981 units in March, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. reported Wednesday. The gain was driven by new multi-unit construction in Toronto and Vancouver. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Theophilos Argitis, Bloomberg

    Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

    July 22, 2019 —
    State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
    Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

    Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

    May 13, 2019 —
    Arbitration provisions are enforceable and they are becoming more challenging to circumvent, especially if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement wants to arbitrate a dispute versus litigate a dispute. Remember this when agreeing to an arbitration provision as the forum for dispute resolution in your contract. There is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to arbitration provisions and how they are drafted. But, there is a very strong public policy in favor of honoring a contractual arbitration provision because this is what the parties agreed to as the forum to resolve their disputes. By way of example, in Austin Commercial, L.P. v. L.M.C.C. Specialty Contractors, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D925a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), a subcontractor and prime contactor entered into a consultant agreement that contained the following arbitration provision:
    Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures, if any, set out in the Prime Contract between [Prime Contractor] and the [Owner]. Should the Prime Contract contain no specific requirement for the resolution of disputes or should the [Owner] not be involved in the dispute, any such controversy or claim shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association then prevailing, and judgment upon the award by the Arbitrator(s) shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.
    The prime contract between the owner and prime contractor did not require arbitration. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    How VR and AR Will Help in Remote Expert Assistance

    June 10, 2019 —
    The speed and quality of maintenance and repair are critical in the modern, technology-packed built environment. Consequently, these were considered in an experimental project that tested how remote expert assistance using VR and AR technologies could help improve the productivity of field service. I’m in a hall overlooking white mountain tops. It’s snowing. In front of me stands an avatar that explains to me what we can do together in this virtual space. He jumps away but I can still hear his voice from behind me. He fetches a chair and hands it to me. I grab it and inspect it. The next moment, a video starts playing on the wall. Later, my host shows me how to draw in three dimensions, how to make sticky notes, how to share a PC desktop, and how to use other collaboration tools. This experience took place at FAKE Production, a Helsinki-based digital image, animation, and VR/AR studio. With VR glasses and hand-held controllers, I had tried out Glue, their universal collaboration platform. This is a soon-to-be-released service that you can use with VR/AR gear and on mobile and desktop devices. Glue is also one of the solutions tested in an experimental project called Expert assistance using VR and AR glasses. In this project, Sovelto, a Finnish educational company, wanted to explore the possibilities of using VR and AR solutions for field service. Over ten organizations took part in the project, which received funding from KIRA-digi, the national built environment digitalization program. Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
    Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

    South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

    March 18, 2019 —
    In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
    Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

    Massachusetts Court Holds Statute of Repose Bars Certain Asbestos-Related Construction Claims

    April 17, 2019 —
    In Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed whether the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applies to long-tail tort claims, such as those caused by exposure to asbestos. Reasoning that the language of § 2B is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, the SJC held that Mass. Gen. Laws. c. 260 § 2B does in fact bar all tort claims arising out of a deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property filed after the expiration of the six-year repose period. Additionally, the court affirmed that the time limitations imposed by the statute of repose may not be tolled for any reason six years after either the opening of the improvement for use or the owner taking possession of the improvement for occupation upon substantial completion, whichever may occur first. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of